Regina v Ronen - [2004] NSWSC 1294

Reported Decision:
211 FLR 310

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1294 revised - 26/04/2005

HEARING DATE(S):

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: In my view, the interest of justice requires that the trial proceed without further delay and without fragmentation of the trial process. This I propose to do unless an order is made by the High Court staying the continuance of the trial.

CATCHWORDS: Trial by Jury - - Jury Act 1977 (NSW) - Do the provisions of the Act impair the fundamentals of a trial by jury (s 80) Australian Constitution)?

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

CASES CITED: Johns v The Queen (1979) 141 CLR 409 at 418
Brownlee v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 278, 288-290; 296-303
Katsuno v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 40 at 65 (52)
Cheatle v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 541 at 562
R v Baum (1929) 27 (SR) NSW 401
R v Cripps (1) WN 112.
Ng v The Queen [2003] HCA 20 noted, at para 9

PARTIES :
Regina v Ida Ronen
Regina v Nitzan Ronen
Regina v Izhar Ronen

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70222/03; 70032/03; 70223/03

COUNSEL: Mr T. Game SC; Ms S. McNaughton - Crown
Mr R. Richter QC; Mr N. Rosenbaum - Accused Ida Ronen
Mr I. Hill QC; Mr E. Power - Accused Nitzan Ronen
Mr R. Van de Wiel QC; Mr P. Jones - Accused Izhar Ronen

SOLICITORS: Ms P. Musgrave - Cth DPP
Watsons Solicitors - Accused

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

WEDNESDAY 28 April 2004

70032/03 - REGINA v Nitzan RONEN
70222/03 - REGINA v Ida RONEN
70223/03 - REGINA v Izhar RONEN

JUDGMENT - Application for ruling that certain provisions of the Jury Act 1977 are inconsistent with the requirements of s 80 of the Constitution

1 HIS HONOUR: On Friday 16 April 2004, the Court was met with an unanticipated application made by Mr Richter QC on behalf of the accused. The application was that the accused be supplied with the names and occupation of panel members prior to the process of jury selection.

2 It is necessary to say something about the circumstances relating to the making of the application before commenting on its outcome. On 2 February 2004 an indictment was presented against each of the accused and each was arraigned on that occasion. There are two charges in the indictment. The first is a charge that Ida Ronen, Nitzan Ronen and Izhar Ronen between about 1 October 1991 and 15 September 1995, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, did conspire with each other to defraud the Commonwealth, namely the Commissioner of Taxation, contrary to s 86A of the Crimes Act 1914. The second charge is that Ida Ronen, Nitzan…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Regina v Ronen

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ronen [2004] NSWSC 1294
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1294
Decision Date: 28 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Ronen involved the defendant, Ronen, who was on trial for serious criminal charges. The trial was conducted under the provisions of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW). Ronen challenged the constitutionality of the Act, claiming that it impaired the fundamental principles of a trial by jury as outlined in section 80 of the Australian Constitution. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of the provisions in question.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the provisions of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) were consistent with the constitutional requirement for a trial by jury. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the Act's provisions, which included the ability to conduct trials with a single judge and jury, or without a jury in certain circumstances, were in breach of section 80 of the Constitution. This section stipulates that in prosecutions for serious offences, the trial must be by jury.

The court examined the historical context and purpose of section 80 of the Constitution, which was to ensure that serious criminal trials are conducted by a jury to safeguard against potential judicial bias and to ensure public confidence in the justice system. The court also considered the role of juries in the Australian legal framework and the evolution of jury laws over time. Ultimately, the court found that the provisions of the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) did not fundamentally impair the right to a trial by jury as they still allowed for the possibility of a jury trial in serious criminal cases. The court held that the Act's provisions were a reasonable and appropriate means of ensuring the efficient administration of justice, without undermining the core principles of section 80 of the Constitution.

The High Court of Australia therefore ruled that the Jury Act 1977 (NSW) did not impair the constitutional right to a trial by jury. The decision confirmed the validity of the Act's provisions, allowing for flexible trial arrangements while maintaining the integrity of the jury system.

Orders